The Supreme Court has ruled that Idaho doctors must provide emergency abortions despite the state's near-total ban, in accordance with federal law requiring stabilizing treatment in critical conditions.
The Supreme Court has issued a ruling that Idaho doctors must provide emergency abortions despite the state's near-total ban. The Court held that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) requires health care providers to give "stabilizing treatment" — including abortions — for patients when needed to treat an emergency medical condition, even if doing so might conflict with a state's abortion restrictions.
The case, Moyle v. U.S. and Idaho v. U.S., had garnered national attention following the high court's 2022 ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that had guaranteed the right to abortion nationwide.
Supreme Court Rules on Emergency Abortion Access in Idaho
In an unsigned opinion, the Court held that writs of certiorari in the two cases were "improvidently granted," and vacated stays the Court granted earlier this year. The matter will continue to be litigated on the merits in lower courts, and could end up back before the Supreme Court in the future.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanagh, agreed with the Court's move, stating that the shape of the cases had substantially shifted since the Court granted certiorari.
Supreme Court Rules on Emergency Abortion Access in Idaho
However, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented, calling the Court's decision "baffling." Alito argued that the statutory interpretation question at the heart of the case was straightforward and ripe for decision, and criticized the Court for vacating the stay without any legally relevant changes having occurred.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also wrote separately, concurring with the Court's decision to lift the stay but dissenting against its decision to dismiss the cases as improvidently granted. Jackson emphasized the urgency of the matter and argued that the Court's actions had violated federal law.
Supreme Court Rules on Emergency Abortion Access in Idaho
Idaho's newly enacted Defense of Life Act makes it a crime for any medical provider to perform an abortion with exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. The Justice Department sued the state, arguing that EMTALA requires health care providers to give "stabilizing treatment" — including abortions — for patients when needed to treat an emergency medical condition, even if doing so might conflict with a state's abortion restrictions.
Idaho argued that "construing EMTALA as a federal abortion mandate raises grave questions under the major questions doctrine that affect both Congress and this Court." Proponents of the state's abortion restriction accused the Biden administration of "subverting states' rights," citing the Dobbs decision which allowed states to regulate abortion access.
Supreme Court Rules on Emergency Abortion Access in Idaho
The Supreme Court's decision is a significant victory for abortion rights advocates. It ensures that women in Idaho will have access to emergency abortion care, even in the face of the state's near-total ban. However, the future of abortion rights in the United States remains uncertain, as the Court's conservative majority could potentially overturn Roe v. Wade in the future.
